Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Publishing While in Graduate School

It's a little late for this year, but Gualtiero Piccinini has a nice discussion of the ins & outs of publishing in advance of the job market.

h/t Leiter.

--Mr. Zero

35 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is off topic, but are departments slower this year in contacting candidates for interviews? According to Phylo, only five of the jobs to which I've applied have begun scheduling interviews.

Of course, it's possible candidates have been contacted and simply aren't posting on Phylo. But if that's not the case, it seems like things are moving a little more slowly this year.

Mr. Zero said...

are departments slower this year in contacting candidates for interviews?

I don't think so. I expect things to pick up next week in a big way.

Anonymous said...

12:56,

It might seem that things are slower this year just because there are fewer jobs in total. Percentage-wise, the number of places that have contacted people so far for interviews seems about normal. Mr. Zero is right--most of the activity will be after this Thursday and Friday, and mostly next week and the following.

Anonymous said...

there's definitely interviews set that aren't posted on the wiki. only a small number of applicants actually post on the wikis

Anonymous said...

Thanks Anon 4:30. Way to get everyone's anxiety soaring.

Anonymous said...

So which ones have been set that haven't been posted? I call BS unless names are provided.

Anonymous said...

I have been granted interviews already. They explicitly asked me not to post to the wiki and I have not. The departments are concerned that if they have to dip deeper into the aplicant pool, those individuals will feel like second choices if they already know, through the wiki, that others received interview requests earlier.

Anonymous said...

Sheesh. Worse than sloppy seconds is being deceived into thinking that you are not sloppy seconds.

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:10,

Maybe. But please tell us more.

The departments are concerned that if they have to dip deeper into the aplicant pool, those individuals will feel like second choices if they already know, through the wiki, that others received interview requests earlier.

Why would they have to "dig deeper"?

I'd guess the departments you have in mind can't be R1. Who would turn down an interview at Madison or Rochester? And surely the departments can't be top SLAC. Would anyone turn down a chance to interview with Reed?

Anonymous said...

Both schools that have asked me to not post to the wiki are quite good. One of them is a top twenty program. The reasons for their requests may or may not be good ones. But as far as I'm concerned, if they are granting me an interview and don't want me to post, I won't.

Anonymous said...

Man, I still call BS.

(1) I'm scanning the list of job ads and you can figure out the "top 20" programs. In this market, no one is going to turn down interviews from anyone, never mind a "top 20" program (especially the ones interviewing).

(2) What kind of school says, "Please don't post this information on the 'Philosophy Job Wiki.' We know we're a top 20 program... but we're really worried that someone is going to turn our 2nd go-round interview down if they got an offer from [insert school you've never heard of]." And to have two schools say this? That is entirely unbelievable.

(3) While the wiki does track IPs, get a friend to post from another location. Perhaps it'd be in your best interest! Maybe you could pick a location close to someone else they are interviewing and have them disqualified for violating the don't-post-to-the-wiki rules!

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:08

There are more reasons to expand an interview list than rejection by those already offered interviews. For example, it is very easy to find out if the people you are interviewing are also being interviewed by every other big program. If so, it might be prudent to expand the list. Again, I'm not endorsing the reasoning behind the request; I'm simply reporting what has been communicated to me.

But if it helps you sleep better at night, continue thinking that I am lying.

Anonymous said...

Why post that, 8:10? Assuming what you say is true, why not truly keep it to yourself as asked? What purpose could dishing out vague, anonymous information serve except to make a bunch of very nervous people even more nervous?

I agree with 9:08 that this doesn't quite ring true, anyway. Perhaps it would be more plausible if they asked you not to post, not because of double dipping, but because they don't schedule interviews at one go or are still make final decisions on some applicants.

Blind Lemon Jefferson said...

This is on topic, I'm afraid. Some people at top schools seem to think it's bad for you to publish in less than stellar journals. But people at less than stellar schools seem to think that pretty much any publication is better than none. So grad students have to choose what kind of school they are likely to end up at before they decide where to submit their stuff. (Or else create two or more versions of their CV and pretend to the good schools that they never published in the lowly places they boast of publishing in to lowlier schools.) Isn't this a bit fucked up? Does anyone have a good solution? Or am I misunderstanding the views of search committee members?

Look at me, I'm anonymous said...

Yeah, I've gotten three flyouts and a job offer already, but they told me not to tell anyone in case when I turn them down to take up a chair at Oxford the losers they have to interview in my stead feel bad.

Sheesh, even if it's true, why post it here?

Anonymous said...

8:10AM, Good to know that SC (that already selected people to interview) care so deeply about the rest of us. I feel truly blessed.

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:10am, I totally understand. I have already been offered the job by each of the schools that contacted you but they told me not to post it to the job wiki because then people will figure out that I just made up a bunch of bullshit about top 20 departments being both aware of and legitimately concerned with the basic info getting posted to some podunk job wiki.

Anonymous said...

Panhandler shot dead outside the APA hotel... a sign of things to come?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/10/times-square-shooting-lea_n_387381.html

zombie said...

Not that he wasn't shot dead, but it wasn't a panhandler. According to the NY Times (the only paper that matters), it was a man who "had been a part of a scam to intimidate tourists into buying CDs." Counterfeit CDs to boot!

Tourists. So gullible. Be warned, philosophers. Don't fall for aggressive counterfeit CD scams.

Anonymous said...

Murder. Death. So what? Can we please return to more pressing matters, such as anxieties of philosophers without job interviews?

Anonymous said...

To anon 9:08 and 9:48

I know of at least one school that has made the exact request mentioned by anon 8:10.

when the APA rolls around check out the wiki and notice that not all the schools that are interviewing are not posted on the wiki. do the math.

Anonymous said...

Hey, idiot, if you're right, then once folks "do the math" after jolly ol' X-mas, they'll then know which schools requested wiki silence BEFORE the interviews take place, which big surprise is the fucking same as just coming right out with the specific info now, you moron.

Look at me, I'm still anonymous said...

8:26:

Fine. Nonetheless, why post that here?

Suppose I'm contacted next week by a school, and told not to post to a wiki so that later-asked candidates won't feel like "second choices". Given what I've seen here, I'll suspect this is one of 8:10 schools and feel like a second choice anyway. Being told to shut up about something isn't the same as being told to not name names.

Anonymous said...

Why is it that if a candidate basically knows that a position has been accepted, that the school doesn't have the balls to notify said candidate? Substitute interviews for that: why can't I be told if I didn't make the cut of the first round of scheduled interviews?

This happened with one place where my director was pretty close with person x on the SC. I didn't even get a notification letter, email, NOTHING, saying that I didn't make the cut. Had it not been for the wiki I would have still be hoping, dreaming, and praying for this position. Total BS.

And its rude.

Grow a pair, and just tell me the truth, that I didn't make the cut. Don't be a little bitch and hide, then dig into the pool if your oh-so-great "top picks" bail on you (when half the time its either pure luck or name brand school that determines the pick anyway.)

I am so SICK of this. Once my Ph.D. expires and if I EVER meet some of these people.

Anonymous said...

No need to be so impolite, Anon 11:51.

Besides, the fact that a school never shows up on the wiki as having scheduled interviews doesn't mean that they asked their interviewees not to post there. Lots of people who get interviews and/or offers don't post to the wiki. Maybe they don't know about it. Maybe they want to keep us all in suspense. Maybe they shun it as if it were some kind of soul-destroying monster. Whatever the case, we'll never be able to deduce which schools asked people not to post. Comments about such requests are therefore unfalsifiable.

Which is why I'd like to take this opportunity to tell Anon 9:58 that Oxford already offered me the chair he's counting on. They just asked me not to post anything on the wiki.

Popkin said...

If schools really are asking people not to post information on the wiki, that would seem to be rather unethical. A school might gain some kind of advantage by keeping potential applicants in the dark regarding where they stand with that school, and it's clearly in any given candidate's interest to have that information. The notion that a school would pressure a job-seeker (after all, hardly anyone is going to protest and risk being seen as "difficult") to protect its interests and act against those of his/her fellow job-seekers is pretty offensive.

Anonymous said...

My department is hiring this year. Once we get our short list, it's our plan to have everyone we know fill up the wiki to make it look like every other job has been filled--that way nobody will ever turn us down.

Isn't the wiki fun?

Until then we'll ask no-one to post, so that no-one feels second class.

We'll also use the wiki as our PFO. Dear Candidate, thank you for you application. Please assume we are going to hire you until you learn otherwise via the wiki.

Anonymous said...

8:53 AM writes:

Both schools that have asked me to not post to the wiki are quite good. One of them is a top twenty program.

Via conversational pragmatics and given who's interviewing, I deduce 8:53 has an interview with either USC or Cornell. Am I right?

Anonymous said...

I have some experience with schools referring to the wiki. Last year, at the flyout stage, I had a school ask me to wait a day or two before posting on the wiki, so that they could personally notify the other candidates that they weren't being given flyouts. That makes sense, and I was happy to do it. But the situation described by the anon posters about not posting initial interviews on the wiki doesn't even make sense to me. If a department interviews at the APA and then decides that they want to interview more people in January, it's going to be completely obvious that the January candidates are second string, regardless of whether anyone posts on the wiki. Aside from that, it seems incredibly obnoxious for a department to forbid posting on the wiki. The departments already have tremendous advantages over the candidates; is it really necessary to give them one more?

Anonymous said...

Anon 7:35,

I think you're right on USC. Just look at that crazy ad where they "may or may not be interviewing at the APA". Bullshit. They knew if they're interviewing at the APA when they made the ad. My guess is that language was used to try and prevent the second stringers from knowing that they were second string. If 7:35 is right and USC is doing this, shame on them.

Anonymous said...

I am the original anonymous poster. I'm sorry for upsetting some people; this was certainly not my intent. I, like many of you, am very anxious about this whole process and never wanted to increase such feelings in others. I posted this info because someone suggested that the wiki is not an accurate snapshot of the current state of affairs. Someone else cried BS. I thought it was good for everyone to know that the wiki is indeed incomplete and for reasons other than people being uninterested in updating it.

I've stopped looking at the wiki myself. It does nothing but make me nauseated. I will know where they stand soon enough.

Also, the reasoning behind many of the "guesses" about which programs are doing this seem to me to be no better than throwing darts at the JFP. I think it would be best if everyone stopped trying to do so.

Anonymous said...

Aha 9:34...so it is USC!

Anonymous said...

Congrats to everyone who got interviews - and you especially Anon 9:34. I'm sure your intentions were good. I think the whole process is so anxiety provoking for everyone that any news that our sanity, including 9:34 and everyone else who got an interview, is hanging by a thread.

Next week, I think, is really the week that it all *really* starts. If I don't get calls next week, I'll be giving up totally for this year and go about my business without trying to worry about all of this.

Good luck everyone.

Anonymous said...

wiki conspiracies, episode n+32:
it seems uniformly the case that no-one posts info on any jobs in "Continental." either those schools discourage it, or maybe there is another, secret wiki out there?

Anonymous said...

it seems uniformly the case that no-one posts info on any jobs in "Continental."

I don't think that's correct. There's interview info for the phenomenology job at Loyola Chicago, for example. And I suspect that some of those applying for jobs in feminist philosophy or philosophy of race (at UTPA or Southwestern) have AOS's which include 20th century continental (e.g. someone working on Kristeva or Irigaray).